Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200814064557.17365-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
 <20200814185124.GA2113@pc636> <CAEXW_YSJXHQq=z+fhHH+ZAVBDRnOYAzo6wHTFaqd9AQYHhQ6yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200818171807.GI27891@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <CAEXW_YQu9MAV-3ym0EFB0NmomWkLsBtZCT9sShnzo+vv=8sLgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200818210355.GM27891@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200818215511.GA2538@pc636> <20200818220245.GO27891@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
In-Reply-To: <20200818220245.GO27891@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:04:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEXW_YRZ6RM90+aYA0JQ1war0n-D0M4peXJZE2_Uqf07xvF+5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: shrink each possible cpu krcp
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, qiang.zhang@windriver.com,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 6:02 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index b8ccd7b5af82..6decb9ad2421 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -2336,10 +2336,15 @@ int rcutree_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> >  {
> >         struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> >         struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;  /* Outgoing CPU's rdp & rnp. */
> > +       struct kfree_rcu_cpu *krcp;
> >
> >         if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU))
> >                 return 0;
> >
> > +       /* Drain the kcrp of this CPU. IRQs should be disabled? */
> > +       krcp = this_cpu_ptr(&krc)
> > +       schedule_delayed_work(&krcp->monitor_work, 0);
> > +
> >
> > A cpu can be offlined and its krp will be stuck until a shrinker is involved.
> > Maybe be never.
>
> Does the same apply to its kmalloc() per-CPU caches?  If so, I have a
> hard time getting too worried about it.  ;-)

Looking at slab_offline_cpu() , that calls cancel_delayed_work_sync()
on the cache reaper who's job is to flush the per-cpu caches. So I
believe during CPU offlining, the per-cpu slab caches are flushed.

thanks,

 - Joel